I have written about the idea of dialectics which I have applied in many areas. Once again, quite a number of people have taken this synthetical idea to a literal sense. It should be viewed from at an abstract level and not on a micro level. Dialectics only work insofar that on a certain aggregate level- it should not be used as a form of conflict for conflict sake; hence justifying starting an argument just so to gain an upper hand. It goes against the principle in the first place.
The idea of conflict resolution insofar that the outcome would be better than a preponderant force imposing it's will on the general interest. Therefore the idea of starting an argument just so to gain an upper hand is in itself a cop-out and rigging of the idea in the first place. The reason is very simple- the intention is to impose it's will in the first place- the idea of conflict is just a means to an end, an end of which is to perpetuate it's own interest.
Therefore it results in an escalation of tension of which is detrimental to the spirit of it in the first place. Therefore one who starts an argument just for the sake of starting one while pretty familiar in the final outcome is in itself stating a parochial interest in the name of a general one.
It is therefore that the final outcome is ultimately worse off- this is because in comparison with a harmonious model where harmony and hierarchy rules, how does maintain this model while espousing another- which is ultimately the conflict one. Insofar in this case, it stated intention is a dialectical one but it's real one is that of harmonious and hierarchical one. Therefore of course we do better if we say and do harmony but how does one say conflict and do harmony. It's final outcome is already in itself a foregone conclusion.
Therefore, in order to operationalize this idea in our everyday actions while being aware of it's aggregate outcome is ultimately the way for it to work. Because prevailing interest always attempt to prevail, there includes in everyday discourse, in the intelligentsia and in the mass media. Hence it would be easy to see the idea in operation- the idea of conflict for conflict sake- while remaining ignorant that it's form prevails over the function.
This can be felt in an angst that we feel everyday- the existential question whereby where does my actions genuinely lead to? And if it leads otherwise, why the hell do we still follow it in the first place.
And the moment you take that route that somehow doesn't feel right- there is a sense of fatalism and it is only cured by all forms of pressure and tension releasing exercises- of which I believed most of us are already quite familiar with.
And the cycle continues every single day and minute. You are never released until the day you die, somehow is the feeling that you get.
Therefore that's why I have previously stressed on the importance of choices. The choices that we make every single day, aggregates the outcome on any given day. Hence if there is intention to cop-out, and sufficient people does the same thing, eventually the sense of fatalism feels even more heavier.
But the problem remains is that the moment I put it in words- it is then subjected to subversion. Someone would ask you the amount of water you drink today would result in when you would die- it is subverting the idea of choices to add an even harder dosages of fatalism. That's the reason that my ideas and thoughts were subverted till this end insofar that to perpetuate a prevailing interest. I am restricted by words but the idea remains authentic.
Choices make or break your day, but ignoring some choices is in itself a choice- because we must be aware that why should be forced to make a choice in the first place; who are these people to impose a choice on us in the first place- and decide our future for the rest of our lives.
Not making a choice is not being random- it is therefore that information is needed before making a choice, and not having to make a choice just because someone forced you to. Are you are playing Russian Roulette.
Subversion is not just restricted to the young and reckless- anyone can subvert it for their own ends. It is the intention that lies behind it- one is to assert an interest, the other is to perpetuate their's. Subversion is hollowing out of the words and to fill one's own to serve it's own interest and nothing else.
Therefore insofar that the ideas and thoughts I have written were already well-recognized among many- it surprises me that it could be twisted to a form quite unrecognizable by many familiar with it. I did not promote conflict- and to start an argument just for the sake one- neither did I say to make a choice on even how much water you want to drink to prevent drowning- all I ever did say was that the choices we make ultimately would make synthesis and not to continue one.
Therefore we have to recognize when the idea was being subverted in the first place- and the angst that one would feel is symptomatic in that, something is amiss. Why do I feel short-changed- one way or another- it's like damned if I do and damned if I don't?
That is really when your interest has been siphoned off from you. You would have done much better otherwise. Why must you make you choice in the first place- who says that drinking ice-cream today will lead to obesity 40 years later?
These are not choices but "categories" created insofar to contain your desires inasmuch that it could be used to better manage your needs. Management is not fatalism- if your cup is always full, then how do hell do you move your cup without spilling anything in the first place. When your cup is too full and filled to the brim. It would mean then that, no other substance can go in- hence how then can your cup be constantly full every single time; unless you can tell the future. And if we can, why do we bother working in the first place.
Really at the end of the day, this is not a clarion call to start a rebellion or revolution- this is a clarion call to ask yourself every single day, what have you done to improve your lot. The reason is very simple, people will always want to perpetuate their own interest- starting a revolution could just play into their own hands. How then could you improve your interest and lot without ever being made to make fatalistic choices- these are NOT divinely made choices, but constructed categories; it is malleable and have always been, otherwise the world would be stagnant for a long time.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Saturday, August 25, 2012
6 Beliefs
There have been alot of confusion upon what I believed in. Some believed that I believed in nothing at all while other's think that I am attempting to recreate a new age thing or some believed that I am a derivation of something existing and I am trying to usurp their position. Normally I do not bother with trying to categorize who is the subset of what and vice versa. I do not attempt to trace my origins but I would try to write out what I believed in- and the rest is out of my hands and I leave it to you to decide.
Firstly I do not attempt to answer the question whether god or other ther-worldly things exist. I find it a futile attempt because if it would really exist, I believed that everyone would be the first to know or last to know. Because then in this case, we would have an utopia or dystopia on this world. Till that day comes, I would stay as an agnostic- a belief that something supernatural exist but we just do not know what it is- because I do not believed I know everything and can always make the best decision every time and even if we can know everything- we are restricted by the language that we speak.
Secondly, contrary to popular belief that I am a lazy bastard- I believed that we reap what we sow. Therefore sitting at home and doing nothing, pretending that something will drop from the sky and save us from our misery is just wishful thinking. The only reason that I did that was rather altruistic- however naive that might have sound. My thoughts was that I thought it was best to write as often as I could and to help as many as I could given some form of special privilege- but it was just that the world moved faster than I could write. Hence some new fangled stuff probably replace what I have written without me getting any leverage on that.
I knew it was rather silly of me to believed that but I took a risk- and not all risk are for self-interested reasons only- and it was a notion to believed that I had a pipe dream to be an Internet Star or the next the J K Rowling. This was nothing further from the truth. Perhaps it would be good to expand on the above. We often assume risk is associated with reward- and the first thing that comes to find is material rewards. Therefore then, in this case, when we took risk, it must be for the reason of more personal rewards.
But the thing is that it is true that to a certain degree, I did it for self-interested reason- but if we increase risk just to increase more rewards, then a person with mountains of cash would have reaped the most rewards isn't it. But because he had put in mountains of case, wouldn't that mean, he had to expect mountains of cash to come back to him as well. What have I got to lose- time. I did not really put in a ton of effort at the same time, neither did I put in any money- but what I gotten back: the very fact that you are still reading this blog in spite of my so-called "scandals".
But of course, I would not know the material rewards resulting from this effect but this is a commodity of which many people spends tons of effort, money and time doing it- I did it just by sitting at home and typing away. I can foresee right now, some person trying to replicate this effect just at this current moment, but you would have put in alot more effort just to differentiate yourself from me- and perhaps then it would be time for me to move on to some other things.
Thirdly, I do not discriminate anyone based on their race, religion or other forms of obvious markers. The only reason I ever appear to be so otherwise was that: I am human. I have my own personal preferences. I do not need to explain to anyone why I choose one over another just because he/she was different from the rest. I am choosing what I eat, wear and other things- I am not writing a policy here.
Fourthly, that I loved money more than anything else in the world. I have a depleting bank account and net worth, and yet I do not worry about getting my next meal. The reason is that I took a risk, and I knew that this would have an impact- and I had to deal with it when the time comes. If I had worried about the next meal, I wouldn't even have taken this step in the first place. Then it is that, the money is a means to an end but the end would be that the money would eventually have to be taken care care off for the end to have any chance of succeeding. It is that I shed my assets and money- and had I taken the route of seeing the money as the end goal and the only goal, I would have sat in my cushy job and not have done anything in the first place. There was not even a need for me to do that if that was my only reason.
Fifthly, I do not care what you believed in or what you think that of what I think of you. I do not hold like hold long term grudges neither do I detest anyone based on their personal beliefs or habits. And of course like anyone, I expect basic level of social manners, hygiene and presentation- other than that, I do not hold like a personal vendetta towards anyone.
Lastly, that I imposed my views upon others: like what I have said at the start of this entry, I can only say things that I believed to my best ability is true, accurate and beneficial. The rest like I say is up to you.
Suddenly I appear all the more normal and no different from each and everyone of you.
There are no sweeping statements there neither are there any ambitious proclamations- therefore I leave it to you to decide is there anything quite conflictual in my beliefs.
Eugene
Firstly I do not attempt to answer the question whether god or other ther-worldly things exist. I find it a futile attempt because if it would really exist, I believed that everyone would be the first to know or last to know. Because then in this case, we would have an utopia or dystopia on this world. Till that day comes, I would stay as an agnostic- a belief that something supernatural exist but we just do not know what it is- because I do not believed I know everything and can always make the best decision every time and even if we can know everything- we are restricted by the language that we speak.
Secondly, contrary to popular belief that I am a lazy bastard- I believed that we reap what we sow. Therefore sitting at home and doing nothing, pretending that something will drop from the sky and save us from our misery is just wishful thinking. The only reason that I did that was rather altruistic- however naive that might have sound. My thoughts was that I thought it was best to write as often as I could and to help as many as I could given some form of special privilege- but it was just that the world moved faster than I could write. Hence some new fangled stuff probably replace what I have written without me getting any leverage on that.
I knew it was rather silly of me to believed that but I took a risk- and not all risk are for self-interested reasons only- and it was a notion to believed that I had a pipe dream to be an Internet Star or the next the J K Rowling. This was nothing further from the truth. Perhaps it would be good to expand on the above. We often assume risk is associated with reward- and the first thing that comes to find is material rewards. Therefore then, in this case, when we took risk, it must be for the reason of more personal rewards.
But the thing is that it is true that to a certain degree, I did it for self-interested reason- but if we increase risk just to increase more rewards, then a person with mountains of cash would have reaped the most rewards isn't it. But because he had put in mountains of case, wouldn't that mean, he had to expect mountains of cash to come back to him as well. What have I got to lose- time. I did not really put in a ton of effort at the same time, neither did I put in any money- but what I gotten back: the very fact that you are still reading this blog in spite of my so-called "scandals".
But of course, I would not know the material rewards resulting from this effect but this is a commodity of which many people spends tons of effort, money and time doing it- I did it just by sitting at home and typing away. I can foresee right now, some person trying to replicate this effect just at this current moment, but you would have put in alot more effort just to differentiate yourself from me- and perhaps then it would be time for me to move on to some other things.
Thirdly, I do not discriminate anyone based on their race, religion or other forms of obvious markers. The only reason I ever appear to be so otherwise was that: I am human. I have my own personal preferences. I do not need to explain to anyone why I choose one over another just because he/she was different from the rest. I am choosing what I eat, wear and other things- I am not writing a policy here.
Fourthly, that I loved money more than anything else in the world. I have a depleting bank account and net worth, and yet I do not worry about getting my next meal. The reason is that I took a risk, and I knew that this would have an impact- and I had to deal with it when the time comes. If I had worried about the next meal, I wouldn't even have taken this step in the first place. Then it is that, the money is a means to an end but the end would be that the money would eventually have to be taken care care off for the end to have any chance of succeeding. It is that I shed my assets and money- and had I taken the route of seeing the money as the end goal and the only goal, I would have sat in my cushy job and not have done anything in the first place. There was not even a need for me to do that if that was my only reason.
Fifthly, I do not care what you believed in or what you think that of what I think of you. I do not hold like hold long term grudges neither do I detest anyone based on their personal beliefs or habits. And of course like anyone, I expect basic level of social manners, hygiene and presentation- other than that, I do not hold like a personal vendetta towards anyone.
Lastly, that I imposed my views upon others: like what I have said at the start of this entry, I can only say things that I believed to my best ability is true, accurate and beneficial. The rest like I say is up to you.
Suddenly I appear all the more normal and no different from each and everyone of you.
There are no sweeping statements there neither are there any ambitious proclamations- therefore I leave it to you to decide is there anything quite conflictual in my beliefs.
Eugene
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Life Imitate Art
There was boy who enjoyed playing board games. The objective of the board game is very simple- the idea is to switch the colours at the right time at any given move to gain the most points and the most soldiers.
This game was invented by himself but it soon spread to his friends. And therefore after a while he invited his friends over to play this new board game that he recently invented.
The rules of this game is very straightforward. Each person is entitled to one statement and one colour at every move. At the end of every statement, everyone have choice to exchange colours at the permission of the owner. Therefore the person who makes the popular statement and the one who holds the clout very often who most of cards and will only switch the cards only when the interest is best for him.
The thing about this game ultimately is not about the one makes popular statement and who holds the clout- the thing about this game is that to perform a sleight of hand to give a weaker card to it's opponent without him even realise that his permission is seek. How this is done is very simple. Firstly, pretend that he has an upper hand- then he would go out to purchase more soldiers for his team. And at the last moment, when making payment, give him the weaker card because very often the soldier is really the quality that he does not wished the seek and at this moment, he would switch his card with the purchaser- hence giving him the upper hand- without making a single effort.
Of course, the game was invented by him and therefore only he knows the rules the game. And so when more players come in join in the game- everyone wonder, how come he always seem to get the best card.
Of course, this was game invented by him when he was younger. And then he began to be obsessed with playing this game when he grew up. Therefore he know pretends that all his friends, enemies, associates and anyone related to him has a colour code. And so he assigned different colour codes to different people related to him.
He bugged his old school friends to play with him to play his real life game- and eventually a few friends did eventually come to play this game. As this game got round that people were playing really games in their life, a cult game then became a reality game. Soon life imitates art. The colour code assigned to each type of person soon begins to replicate the personality associated to each colour code. Therefore the game became so popular that everyone started playing the game and even begin to strategize even in real life. Thinking that a good strategy would replicate a good outcome in their real and daily life. Soon getting the right colour was a ticket to good luck- no need for hard work really.
Therefore a game has become an obsession- and people started avoid certain colours because there was very little clout- unless someone had made a powerful statement to increase the influence of the particular group. It became painfully obvious, a game has turned into a reality circus show- everyone started wearing as many colour as they want to avoid being caught out. It was Mardi Gras show really.
People eventually was no longer interested in studying or working towards a better outcome- all they want to find out everyday was, what was the favourite colour tomorrow. Never mind, that the colour doesn't jumped out and work for you but basically, the only job was, what was favourite colour tomorrow- and everybody envisioned a positive day ahead, regardless of whether they earned or did not earned it. If they get it right, they thought they could make wishes and all his dreams will come true.
And soon everyone began to watch t.v, internet, radio and all other forms of media predicting the future for tomorrow- because wearing the right colour and other permutations like the timing of statements was important in a "good luck" day, so people delay making decisions, going out and doing other things just so it can timed to perfection. They were effectively being controlled by all these communications without even realising it.
At the end of the day, the inventor of the game became very rich, powerful and all other things imaginable because he could predict accurately the flow of everything, because he held all the cards in the first place as he could switch quite expertly- as he was the inventor of the game in the first place and therefore made the rules anyway.
What started out as schoolboy game- turned out to be a global phenomenon, in which what happened in the head of the young school boy was replicated into real life. Giving life to simple objects, colours and symbols. Life imitated art. Art made lots money for this little boy.
This game was invented by himself but it soon spread to his friends. And therefore after a while he invited his friends over to play this new board game that he recently invented.
The rules of this game is very straightforward. Each person is entitled to one statement and one colour at every move. At the end of every statement, everyone have choice to exchange colours at the permission of the owner. Therefore the person who makes the popular statement and the one who holds the clout very often who most of cards and will only switch the cards only when the interest is best for him.
The thing about this game ultimately is not about the one makes popular statement and who holds the clout- the thing about this game is that to perform a sleight of hand to give a weaker card to it's opponent without him even realise that his permission is seek. How this is done is very simple. Firstly, pretend that he has an upper hand- then he would go out to purchase more soldiers for his team. And at the last moment, when making payment, give him the weaker card because very often the soldier is really the quality that he does not wished the seek and at this moment, he would switch his card with the purchaser- hence giving him the upper hand- without making a single effort.
Of course, the game was invented by him and therefore only he knows the rules the game. And so when more players come in join in the game- everyone wonder, how come he always seem to get the best card.
Of course, this was game invented by him when he was younger. And then he began to be obsessed with playing this game when he grew up. Therefore he know pretends that all his friends, enemies, associates and anyone related to him has a colour code. And so he assigned different colour codes to different people related to him.
He bugged his old school friends to play with him to play his real life game- and eventually a few friends did eventually come to play this game. As this game got round that people were playing really games in their life, a cult game then became a reality game. Soon life imitates art. The colour code assigned to each type of person soon begins to replicate the personality associated to each colour code. Therefore the game became so popular that everyone started playing the game and even begin to strategize even in real life. Thinking that a good strategy would replicate a good outcome in their real and daily life. Soon getting the right colour was a ticket to good luck- no need for hard work really.
Therefore a game has become an obsession- and people started avoid certain colours because there was very little clout- unless someone had made a powerful statement to increase the influence of the particular group. It became painfully obvious, a game has turned into a reality circus show- everyone started wearing as many colour as they want to avoid being caught out. It was Mardi Gras show really.
People eventually was no longer interested in studying or working towards a better outcome- all they want to find out everyday was, what was the favourite colour tomorrow. Never mind, that the colour doesn't jumped out and work for you but basically, the only job was, what was favourite colour tomorrow- and everybody envisioned a positive day ahead, regardless of whether they earned or did not earned it. If they get it right, they thought they could make wishes and all his dreams will come true.
And soon everyone began to watch t.v, internet, radio and all other forms of media predicting the future for tomorrow- because wearing the right colour and other permutations like the timing of statements was important in a "good luck" day, so people delay making decisions, going out and doing other things just so it can timed to perfection. They were effectively being controlled by all these communications without even realising it.
At the end of the day, the inventor of the game became very rich, powerful and all other things imaginable because he could predict accurately the flow of everything, because he held all the cards in the first place as he could switch quite expertly- as he was the inventor of the game in the first place and therefore made the rules anyway.
What started out as schoolboy game- turned out to be a global phenomenon, in which what happened in the head of the young school boy was replicated into real life. Giving life to simple objects, colours and symbols. Life imitated art. Art made lots money for this little boy.
Monday, August 20, 2012
One-upmanship
What is competition? Is competition just basically a matter of one-upmanship- a matter of winning every single battle which would lead to the victory of a war? Is one-upmanship just winning every single hissy fit- which would ultimately lead to a total victory- or one-upmanship just needless escalation of tension just to show the authority over another? And really of what use then is this authority if it does not breed any final outcome? Authority for authority sake- sounds like a dirty word isn't it.
Let us then pretend that authority has a need- or in other words we need leaders to map out the final vision and guide us along. And if authority is there to promote values- assuming that the vision is not some grand plan- then, really don't we all need saints rather than people who attempts one up-manship. Let us then pretend that one-upmanship has a positive value- henceforth, this up-manship must promote the value of competition and sense of competitive will rather than coercion for authority sake isn't it. This competitive will should breed therefore better outcomes of stronger collective group as opposed to weak collective which ultimately defeats the original intention- one could say. This is a value we attempt to inculcate but on the flip side- what does one-upmanship got to do with winning, since this is really the value we are trying to forged?
Therefore then, if we all want to get even for all the wrong-doings done- how then does one-upmanship pretend that getting even is tantamount to revenge for revenge sake? Ultimately, isn't that quite dissimilar from the idea of a competitive will of which is to win at the final game and not to getting even at every turn.
Therefore one-upmanship as an act of value almost appear to be quite incompatible with the actual behaviour of it. Therefore competition for competition sake and for it's very sake appears to have a material intention then to promote a sense of positive value. It is really at the end of day a matter of serving the interest of those who gains the most from one-upmanship. It is really for group interest rather than for general interest. Those who espouse the positive values of competition while getting every opportunity to take a payback serves no other interest other than those gains the most from one-upmanship- which is that who are one-up in the first place. The disposed never play hardball- it is not in their interest but if it does, it calls really for admiration than for condemnation.
Hence, the idea of one-upmanship or the escalation of competition is really an excuse for a fight- an unfair fight of which is to decimate rather than inculcate. Therefore those who propose such fights pretend to have the right of trampled pride but really at the end of the day abuse the right to be so insofar to stamp their authority and perpetuate their prevailing interest.
Let us then pretend that authority has a need- or in other words we need leaders to map out the final vision and guide us along. And if authority is there to promote values- assuming that the vision is not some grand plan- then, really don't we all need saints rather than people who attempts one up-manship. Let us then pretend that one-upmanship has a positive value- henceforth, this up-manship must promote the value of competition and sense of competitive will rather than coercion for authority sake isn't it. This competitive will should breed therefore better outcomes of stronger collective group as opposed to weak collective which ultimately defeats the original intention- one could say. This is a value we attempt to inculcate but on the flip side- what does one-upmanship got to do with winning, since this is really the value we are trying to forged?
Therefore then, if we all want to get even for all the wrong-doings done- how then does one-upmanship pretend that getting even is tantamount to revenge for revenge sake? Ultimately, isn't that quite dissimilar from the idea of a competitive will of which is to win at the final game and not to getting even at every turn.
Therefore one-upmanship as an act of value almost appear to be quite incompatible with the actual behaviour of it. Therefore competition for competition sake and for it's very sake appears to have a material intention then to promote a sense of positive value. It is really at the end of day a matter of serving the interest of those who gains the most from one-upmanship. It is really for group interest rather than for general interest. Those who espouse the positive values of competition while getting every opportunity to take a payback serves no other interest other than those gains the most from one-upmanship- which is that who are one-up in the first place. The disposed never play hardball- it is not in their interest but if it does, it calls really for admiration than for condemnation.
Hence, the idea of one-upmanship or the escalation of competition is really an excuse for a fight- an unfair fight of which is to decimate rather than inculcate. Therefore those who propose such fights pretend to have the right of trampled pride but really at the end of the day abuse the right to be so insofar to stamp their authority and perpetuate their prevailing interest.
Apocalypse Now
Tech companies are no longer the tech companies that they used to be. It is such that tech companies were the high beta plays but now they almost appear to be like traditional brick and mortar companies. There seem to be a new fangled website or company every now and then, but now, tech companies are like the boogie man for everything that is wrong about a risk taking and capitalist society.
The sense is that tech companies is losing it's flavour and they have been slowly replaced by a constant pangs of impending crisis in every turn. There was the Eurozone crisis, then there was jobs crisis, there was the trading scandal crisis, there was the political standoff crisis. Crisis is the new event-driven play. Predict the next crisis and you can predict the next play- it would appear.
But crisis is not new. There have been crisis from the beginning of time, and every time they say there was an apocalypse, miraculously the market will still climb. And when there is calm in the storm, suddenly the market falls off the cliff. Fear is the sure fire way of getting jittery, not the price, and definitely not whether the company is corrupted or well-run or not- but rather a quite unspeakable fear that "something" is going happen. But I have noticed, all the crisis that has been talked about is like asking you to look left and look right before crossing the road, lest you get into an accident. The crisis they talked about almost never materializes.
This crisis is a suspension of your belief that mayhem is coming tomorrow. There have been calls for the end of the world from the Mayan calender, to Mar's landing and an asteroid hitting earth- strangely enough, after 5,000 years of human civilization, no one ever really caught one of these. Likewise for financial markets, every time they say this economy will collapse or that market will fall, it almost never seem happened- and it's market is less than 200 years old. The real crisis happens just when you think nothing is happening.
This fear I suspect is really not as fortuitous one thinks. It's contrived nature, is steeped in mass media culture where reporting of headline-grabbing numbers and statements breeds a sense of uneasiness rather than as a functional communication of data and information.
Reporting that the world will end tomorrow while continuing to report the world will end next week when it doesn't happen tomorrow- the media gets away with it because it is their job to inform rather than to judge. But the net effect of the world's news in half-hour's segment purports to to tell you the world will end tomorrow- with disasters, floods and landslides- while reporting a bush fire in another part of the world next week, it is almost the world is almost really flooding or on fire everyday. The world is so big, some shit is bound to happen somewhere somehow. We just need to pick it for you to read right.
Everyday, there will be another crisis and tomorrow will have some flood and next week there will be earthquake- and if let's say we want to sum up the world's events and report everything, you wouldn't watch the news.
The odds of a Ferrari driven by a mainland Chinese man knocking a taxi cab carrying a Japanese passenger every week is not that big- there are not enough of that in Singapore to cover the whole year, so I suggest that you do not read too much into another crisis of badly behaved foreigners.
Likewise, if you think that China will go into slowdown because the GDP missed by 0.1%- I think you missing the whole point, they have 1.3 billion people and half of them are pretty young. What do young Chinese want more than anything else- more money and jobs right. And does more productivity by many young agile hands perform better than aging albeit elitist and expert hands as an economy- or by extension what is the difference between earning $10,000 a year to $12,000 next year compared with earning $50,000 to $55,000 a year later- the former would find it easier to find jobs, the latter will have to upgrade itself. Unemployment, inflation and other economic issues always crops up- and then if these are crisis, I say most of us would have suffered a heart attack a long time ago.
Therefore similarly tech companies that lose money always existed- companies that lose money existed even before tech companies existed. But companies that existed while other companies lost money also existed. These were crisis even before tech companies faced a crisis- there were crisis even before companies existed. If crisis is a matter of semantics- then I suggest that stretch that definition just a little more, just to fit the modern version because the last I check, a slave loses his head for bringing too warm a water to drink not too long ago. Talk about a crisis.
Crisis ultimately is not to tell you the world is ending tomorrow but rather a crisis of confidence- insofar that you can check your own behaviour- rather than telling you that there is flood in a Pacific island hence it will hit you because a crisis is happening the world; and it is matter of time that it will hit you eventually.
Just so you know, the odds of hitting lottery is better than a apocalypse happening tomorrow because the odds of the former is a finite number and that of the latter is well- nil- because it has never happen before.
Nights
Eugene
The sense is that tech companies is losing it's flavour and they have been slowly replaced by a constant pangs of impending crisis in every turn. There was the Eurozone crisis, then there was jobs crisis, there was the trading scandal crisis, there was the political standoff crisis. Crisis is the new event-driven play. Predict the next crisis and you can predict the next play- it would appear.
But crisis is not new. There have been crisis from the beginning of time, and every time they say there was an apocalypse, miraculously the market will still climb. And when there is calm in the storm, suddenly the market falls off the cliff. Fear is the sure fire way of getting jittery, not the price, and definitely not whether the company is corrupted or well-run or not- but rather a quite unspeakable fear that "something" is going happen. But I have noticed, all the crisis that has been talked about is like asking you to look left and look right before crossing the road, lest you get into an accident. The crisis they talked about almost never materializes.
This crisis is a suspension of your belief that mayhem is coming tomorrow. There have been calls for the end of the world from the Mayan calender, to Mar's landing and an asteroid hitting earth- strangely enough, after 5,000 years of human civilization, no one ever really caught one of these. Likewise for financial markets, every time they say this economy will collapse or that market will fall, it almost never seem happened- and it's market is less than 200 years old. The real crisis happens just when you think nothing is happening.
This fear I suspect is really not as fortuitous one thinks. It's contrived nature, is steeped in mass media culture where reporting of headline-grabbing numbers and statements breeds a sense of uneasiness rather than as a functional communication of data and information.
Reporting that the world will end tomorrow while continuing to report the world will end next week when it doesn't happen tomorrow- the media gets away with it because it is their job to inform rather than to judge. But the net effect of the world's news in half-hour's segment purports to to tell you the world will end tomorrow- with disasters, floods and landslides- while reporting a bush fire in another part of the world next week, it is almost the world is almost really flooding or on fire everyday. The world is so big, some shit is bound to happen somewhere somehow. We just need to pick it for you to read right.
Everyday, there will be another crisis and tomorrow will have some flood and next week there will be earthquake- and if let's say we want to sum up the world's events and report everything, you wouldn't watch the news.
The odds of a Ferrari driven by a mainland Chinese man knocking a taxi cab carrying a Japanese passenger every week is not that big- there are not enough of that in Singapore to cover the whole year, so I suggest that you do not read too much into another crisis of badly behaved foreigners.
Likewise, if you think that China will go into slowdown because the GDP missed by 0.1%- I think you missing the whole point, they have 1.3 billion people and half of them are pretty young. What do young Chinese want more than anything else- more money and jobs right. And does more productivity by many young agile hands perform better than aging albeit elitist and expert hands as an economy- or by extension what is the difference between earning $10,000 a year to $12,000 next year compared with earning $50,000 to $55,000 a year later- the former would find it easier to find jobs, the latter will have to upgrade itself. Unemployment, inflation and other economic issues always crops up- and then if these are crisis, I say most of us would have suffered a heart attack a long time ago.
Therefore similarly tech companies that lose money always existed- companies that lose money existed even before tech companies existed. But companies that existed while other companies lost money also existed. These were crisis even before tech companies faced a crisis- there were crisis even before companies existed. If crisis is a matter of semantics- then I suggest that stretch that definition just a little more, just to fit the modern version because the last I check, a slave loses his head for bringing too warm a water to drink not too long ago. Talk about a crisis.
Crisis ultimately is not to tell you the world is ending tomorrow but rather a crisis of confidence- insofar that you can check your own behaviour- rather than telling you that there is flood in a Pacific island hence it will hit you because a crisis is happening the world; and it is matter of time that it will hit you eventually.
Just so you know, the odds of hitting lottery is better than a apocalypse happening tomorrow because the odds of the former is a finite number and that of the latter is well- nil- because it has never happen before.
Nights
Eugene
Good and Evil
Is there a Good and Evil- is there an eternal war between God and Devil? I am not here to answer the question whether a God and Devil exist, these are questions beyond anything Science can offer- because Science has limits, God and the Devil- by it's definitions- has no limits.
In most cultures and religions, there is often a Good and Evil, a pain and joy, tears and laughter, a black and a white. We do not know one without knowledge of the other. Let us assume that we lived in paradise from birth, how then do we know sadness even when we encounter one, we might not even have the language to explain that emotion. Hence although, it would be very difficult to swallow for some, without evil, good cannot exist because we wouldn't know a bad egg from a good one since we are all the same hence by extension, in everyone language, we wouldn't know Us from Them or the "Others". Therefore in seeking our identity, we do not know ourselves if we do not the "Other" side or by what other name you want to call it.
Therefore when we stand on the side of "Good" for example, we ironically derive our identity from the "Bad' or "Evil" because insofar that the term "Good" does not exist in vacuum. Assuming that all of us is "Good", there would not be a good and evil- there would just be "us".
Hence let us assume that Good and Evil is verifiable, in other words, like in the movies, we see them as monsters or are extremely ugly, while the Good are well just like you and I- with common features- then by extension, we would know who to fight; and ironically there would no longer be no Evil in this world- since well like carbon on a sticky pan, we scrub it off till it's clean. But of course in reality things do not work this way.
Evil therefore in this world is not ugly- neither does it tell you that he is evil; but rather it is line drawn by human forces to tell what is "Good" and what is "Evil". Who is " us" and who is "them" or the "Others". Assuming that this line drawn is subjected then by a very human judgement- then how are we to say who is bad and who right.
Therefore the idea of "evil" assuming that the divine forces work in human objects- therefore could ironically be wrong. Hence then the idea of "Good" and "Evil" without the intervention of an absolute sanctified by an unquestioned source- like a heaven's mandate-, is really quite subjective.
Therefore the vehemence laid upon the "Others" without first hand knowledge but reliant on a proxy authority is subject therefore to empty labelling and stereotyping. Stereotypes, symbols and badges without any real relationships are easy to dislike, real humans are not.
We can often trace the source of the division to how the society is organized and how we divide our work. Labourers are given certain symbols, managers are given certain status, and business owners are given other markers. Once we approportion out the lines, it is then easy to see the Us and Them, and whoever that does not perform the roles of it's ascribed status- is therefore "them", or really by any other names, evil, foreigners, untouchables and other tags. Hence once we apportion out the titles, it's own set morality and behaviour comes into play- and once again these are markers for the likelihood of all deviant tags.
It is then at this point that one realise that the wrong-ness of any particular act is really quite separate from the verdict meted out on any allegations. Therefore assuming then that "wrong-ness" has it's own code, the judgement can therefore be quite different for different sets of people. This ultimately flies in the face of this idea of really "Good" for "Good" sake and "evil" has it's just desserts."
Ultimately it really begs the question, let's say that someone from authority says this person is evil and he has an unquestioned legitimacy- ultimately he is all the human- which part of him/her can one say is guilty/evil/ wrong without finding out the due process. The price of a wrong judgement is laid upon the defendant rather than the audience, but it is the audience who watches and wishes not to be him/her- and that in itself has already work it's magic. Therefore being wrong is not punishable, but rather being caught wrong is the real punishment- there in itself is the biggest carrot for docile followers.
In most cultures and religions, there is often a Good and Evil, a pain and joy, tears and laughter, a black and a white. We do not know one without knowledge of the other. Let us assume that we lived in paradise from birth, how then do we know sadness even when we encounter one, we might not even have the language to explain that emotion. Hence although, it would be very difficult to swallow for some, without evil, good cannot exist because we wouldn't know a bad egg from a good one since we are all the same hence by extension, in everyone language, we wouldn't know Us from Them or the "Others". Therefore in seeking our identity, we do not know ourselves if we do not the "Other" side or by what other name you want to call it.
Therefore when we stand on the side of "Good" for example, we ironically derive our identity from the "Bad' or "Evil" because insofar that the term "Good" does not exist in vacuum. Assuming that all of us is "Good", there would not be a good and evil- there would just be "us".
Hence let us assume that Good and Evil is verifiable, in other words, like in the movies, we see them as monsters or are extremely ugly, while the Good are well just like you and I- with common features- then by extension, we would know who to fight; and ironically there would no longer be no Evil in this world- since well like carbon on a sticky pan, we scrub it off till it's clean. But of course in reality things do not work this way.
Evil therefore in this world is not ugly- neither does it tell you that he is evil; but rather it is line drawn by human forces to tell what is "Good" and what is "Evil". Who is " us" and who is "them" or the "Others". Assuming that this line drawn is subjected then by a very human judgement- then how are we to say who is bad and who right.
Therefore the idea of "evil" assuming that the divine forces work in human objects- therefore could ironically be wrong. Hence then the idea of "Good" and "Evil" without the intervention of an absolute sanctified by an unquestioned source- like a heaven's mandate-, is really quite subjective.
Therefore the vehemence laid upon the "Others" without first hand knowledge but reliant on a proxy authority is subject therefore to empty labelling and stereotyping. Stereotypes, symbols and badges without any real relationships are easy to dislike, real humans are not.
We can often trace the source of the division to how the society is organized and how we divide our work. Labourers are given certain symbols, managers are given certain status, and business owners are given other markers. Once we approportion out the lines, it is then easy to see the Us and Them, and whoever that does not perform the roles of it's ascribed status- is therefore "them", or really by any other names, evil, foreigners, untouchables and other tags. Hence once we apportion out the titles, it's own set morality and behaviour comes into play- and once again these are markers for the likelihood of all deviant tags.
It is then at this point that one realise that the wrong-ness of any particular act is really quite separate from the verdict meted out on any allegations. Therefore assuming then that "wrong-ness" has it's own code, the judgement can therefore be quite different for different sets of people. This ultimately flies in the face of this idea of really "Good" for "Good" sake and "evil" has it's just desserts."
Ultimately it really begs the question, let's say that someone from authority says this person is evil and he has an unquestioned legitimacy- ultimately he is all the human- which part of him/her can one say is guilty/evil/ wrong without finding out the due process. The price of a wrong judgement is laid upon the defendant rather than the audience, but it is the audience who watches and wishes not to be him/her- and that in itself has already work it's magic. Therefore being wrong is not punishable, but rather being caught wrong is the real punishment- there in itself is the biggest carrot for docile followers.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Black and Pink
A car is a car is a car isn't it. Or is it more than that. Some have argued that the colour, the brand and the model of car, shirt or any thing insofar that is associated to you means alot more than the function that it actually performs.
Hence by any extension, everything would be related to you since we all breath the same air and have the same features isn't it. It is then by pulling a little longer, the narration would always remained the same isn't it. If meaning of colours or any badge for that matter remain singularly faithful to it's original meaning, then we would have the same outcome from time immemorial isn't it. Therefore if a badge is worth more than the weight in gold, than of what function does gold perform other than to give it an exchange value.
But the material interest as such is that we buy and exchange things in value and not in badges, hence a change in badges can only suffice therefore if it generates the same amount of significance which can be exchange for something for the same value. Therefore we would never exchange a golden necklace for a golden T-shirt wouldn't we.
Hence a car or any thing that purports to perform beyond it's reported or expected function serves no other purpose than to signal to other's the meaning of it's audience. But if we were to break it down that communication is a function rather than a haloed need, we would then realise that we would have overpaid beyond what the mere function plus the "communicative value" it generates to it's audience.
Let us take it to the flip side that the meaning is indeed a haloed need, hence insofar to take this position is by extension to condemning yourself to repeating the story of it's original meaning. Therefore let us then assume that black is a symbol of death for everyone- which means that every single person and culture associates black with death- then by extension, we should never be drinking black coffee, T-shirt, pants, cars, watches and other material goods, because we would be in effect cursing ourselves isn't it. But why do we tolerate black moles on our face, hair, eyeballs but we cannot tolerate any other things associated to it.
Therefore to take this particular position is not that it is foolhardy or fatalistic but rather it is extremely difficult to see what is right and what is wrong. Of course, some would call these superstitious and it is really- if we do not believed beyond what we experienced- can be so, but rather taking an opposite direction would mean that we can explain everything and everything is knowable within human knowledge.
Hence it has been time immemorial that there is a tug between busting a myth and leaving to vagaries to something larger or beyond us, hence we would have known the answer at this juncture, we would be God or would have created an utopia on earth- because we would discovered something that sticks, an absolute that would stick which is unquestionably "true". Hence insofar that there are no agreement on the "true-ness" of any absolute, it would always be that symbols and anything performing beyond it's function has a communicative value to the intended audience. It therefore does not have any special significance other than it's intention to relay a meaning to it's cultural readers.
But at the end of the day, like many other things, you believed what you want to believe hence insofar that if one were to take offence at the above message, it is a piece that offers nothing more than an opinion. I leave it to you to believe that wearing a black shirt will save you from a bullet while wearing a pink bullet-proof vest does not.
Hence by any extension, everything would be related to you since we all breath the same air and have the same features isn't it. It is then by pulling a little longer, the narration would always remained the same isn't it. If meaning of colours or any badge for that matter remain singularly faithful to it's original meaning, then we would have the same outcome from time immemorial isn't it. Therefore if a badge is worth more than the weight in gold, than of what function does gold perform other than to give it an exchange value.
But the material interest as such is that we buy and exchange things in value and not in badges, hence a change in badges can only suffice therefore if it generates the same amount of significance which can be exchange for something for the same value. Therefore we would never exchange a golden necklace for a golden T-shirt wouldn't we.
Hence a car or any thing that purports to perform beyond it's reported or expected function serves no other purpose than to signal to other's the meaning of it's audience. But if we were to break it down that communication is a function rather than a haloed need, we would then realise that we would have overpaid beyond what the mere function plus the "communicative value" it generates to it's audience.
Let us take it to the flip side that the meaning is indeed a haloed need, hence insofar to take this position is by extension to condemning yourself to repeating the story of it's original meaning. Therefore let us then assume that black is a symbol of death for everyone- which means that every single person and culture associates black with death- then by extension, we should never be drinking black coffee, T-shirt, pants, cars, watches and other material goods, because we would be in effect cursing ourselves isn't it. But why do we tolerate black moles on our face, hair, eyeballs but we cannot tolerate any other things associated to it.
Therefore to take this particular position is not that it is foolhardy or fatalistic but rather it is extremely difficult to see what is right and what is wrong. Of course, some would call these superstitious and it is really- if we do not believed beyond what we experienced- can be so, but rather taking an opposite direction would mean that we can explain everything and everything is knowable within human knowledge.
Hence it has been time immemorial that there is a tug between busting a myth and leaving to vagaries to something larger or beyond us, hence we would have known the answer at this juncture, we would be God or would have created an utopia on earth- because we would discovered something that sticks, an absolute that would stick which is unquestionably "true". Hence insofar that there are no agreement on the "true-ness" of any absolute, it would always be that symbols and anything performing beyond it's function has a communicative value to the intended audience. It therefore does not have any special significance other than it's intention to relay a meaning to it's cultural readers.
But at the end of the day, like many other things, you believed what you want to believe hence insofar that if one were to take offence at the above message, it is a piece that offers nothing more than an opinion. I leave it to you to believe that wearing a black shirt will save you from a bullet while wearing a pink bullet-proof vest does not.
An Elusive Wallpaper
The biggest myth in this world is possession. The belief in that just being there or having it is good enough.
This is an idea primordial perhaps in nature but imprinted perhaps from day one, and this is something everyone attempts to transcend. We seek beyond what it is external and satisfaction beyond the mere material form. It is therefore that we often are never satisfied. More is more to most and less is more to some- thinking a subversion, or an austere outlook gives us a visceral appreciation beyond it's mere possession. The idea remains the same, we seek satisfaction beyond this world.
Assuming then that I can give you an antidote to give you a somatic experience similar to this satisfaction, but it would ultimately always seem to fall woefully short. Life ultimately becomes one long addiction trail.
It ultimately leaves you with an insatiable appetite not for satisfaction but rather for a waunderlust for the unknown.
If we cannot possess it neither can we concoct it, it must then ultimately be it's elusiveness rather than it's actual experience that really matters. The actual experience of it is almost neglible if we have constant access to it isn't it.
Therefore the journey of it becomes in itself is an elusion isn't it. The idea of this "lust" for satisfaction then therefore cannot be measured by how much or how many but rather in it's ability to match the bodily experience with the actual work done isn't it.
Hence by extension, coming back again, we could potentially recreate this satisfaction simply by tweaking either side of the coin isn't. And how then- would a puppet feel that he/she is nothing more than a "puppet"? Once again this satisfaction however fortitious the person doing it feels while so, is nothing more than a sham. How then would you feel explaining to a child that Santa Claus does not exist. But really how would then the child knows that Santa Claus does not exist- will it crush him/her- no, I do not think so, but rather it is then the process of growing up isn't it.
When the child grows up, will he/she tell the same story to his/her children-probably yes- even if he/she knows it is untrue. Why- we think children knows any better. We think since we cannot be satisfied, we must satisfy our kids.
How far do we wish to concoct this myth for everyone to consume- is ultimately why the truth however bitter it seems, seems all the more sweeter. It finally explains why one is a hamster running a treadmill rather than really one really running around. The hamster realises that the cage it lives in is not a paradise filled with mountains and trees pasted around it's cage but really it is just a wallpaper.
It finally makes one realise that the contrived nature of their construction of reality- was made with intentions by someone else rather than a result of it's genuine expended somatically experienced labour or effort. Suddenly it makes everyone realise that the truth must ultimately be sweeter. Otherwise, why the secret?
If life is one big race- what if I told everyone sorry, you have always been running on the treadmill, you were not moving, the pictures were.
How then were the mere satisfaction to actually running to somewhere quite desirable when really it really is just a wallpaper. How then would simply getting there or getting a souvenir be all the more satisfactory. Therefore the race continues always to the next desirable wallpaper- which is the carrot sitting right in front of you when you run.
Elusive wallpaper- suddenly doesn't seem so enticing after all isn't it.
This is an idea primordial perhaps in nature but imprinted perhaps from day one, and this is something everyone attempts to transcend. We seek beyond what it is external and satisfaction beyond the mere material form. It is therefore that we often are never satisfied. More is more to most and less is more to some- thinking a subversion, or an austere outlook gives us a visceral appreciation beyond it's mere possession. The idea remains the same, we seek satisfaction beyond this world.
Assuming then that I can give you an antidote to give you a somatic experience similar to this satisfaction, but it would ultimately always seem to fall woefully short. Life ultimately becomes one long addiction trail.
It ultimately leaves you with an insatiable appetite not for satisfaction but rather for a waunderlust for the unknown.
If we cannot possess it neither can we concoct it, it must then ultimately be it's elusiveness rather than it's actual experience that really matters. The actual experience of it is almost neglible if we have constant access to it isn't it.
Therefore the journey of it becomes in itself is an elusion isn't it. The idea of this "lust" for satisfaction then therefore cannot be measured by how much or how many but rather in it's ability to match the bodily experience with the actual work done isn't it.
Hence by extension, coming back again, we could potentially recreate this satisfaction simply by tweaking either side of the coin isn't. And how then- would a puppet feel that he/she is nothing more than a "puppet"? Once again this satisfaction however fortitious the person doing it feels while so, is nothing more than a sham. How then would you feel explaining to a child that Santa Claus does not exist. But really how would then the child knows that Santa Claus does not exist- will it crush him/her- no, I do not think so, but rather it is then the process of growing up isn't it.
When the child grows up, will he/she tell the same story to his/her children-probably yes- even if he/she knows it is untrue. Why- we think children knows any better. We think since we cannot be satisfied, we must satisfy our kids.
How far do we wish to concoct this myth for everyone to consume- is ultimately why the truth however bitter it seems, seems all the more sweeter. It finally explains why one is a hamster running a treadmill rather than really one really running around. The hamster realises that the cage it lives in is not a paradise filled with mountains and trees pasted around it's cage but really it is just a wallpaper.
It finally makes one realise that the contrived nature of their construction of reality- was made with intentions by someone else rather than a result of it's genuine expended somatically experienced labour or effort. Suddenly it makes everyone realise that the truth must ultimately be sweeter. Otherwise, why the secret?
If life is one big race- what if I told everyone sorry, you have always been running on the treadmill, you were not moving, the pictures were.
How then were the mere satisfaction to actually running to somewhere quite desirable when really it really is just a wallpaper. How then would simply getting there or getting a souvenir be all the more satisfactory. Therefore the race continues always to the next desirable wallpaper- which is the carrot sitting right in front of you when you run.
Elusive wallpaper- suddenly doesn't seem so enticing after all isn't it.
Thursday, August 09, 2012
Noise
It is terrible living in a HDB flat. The amount of noise that one has to endure living in public housing is really overbearing. Noise from motorbikes without silencers, the braking of trains and generally the amount of noise that one hears from living in close quarters of poorly selected locations is really quite jarring.
I made a recording of the noise that I can hear from my room. The noise that one hears is not background hum-drum but rather noises which break from monotonous beat. These noises in itself is extremely disturbing and I suspect that it stems from inconsiderate actions of others who probably are more self-interested then they are self-aware.
This stem from the fact that a general lack of manners which result in an attention-seeking behaviour. There is a need for them to understand, the noise of one small vehicle can cause disruption to the surrounding areas. The noise travel with the vehicle and it does not just exist in a vacum. Hence these vehicle owners need to understand it's actions can have wide implications from it's one simple act of removing the silencer or flooring the turbo charger in densely populated areas.
If other vehicles can move without causing much of a disturbance, really the motorist must be aware of his inappropriate and rather inconsiderate behaviour.
I believed that when we see such behaviour, we must approach the person and tell him his inappropriate act. If one has to will to act, then one must have the will to face it's implications.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
